Global environmental politics: Lessons from Montreal

When 24 nations and the European Community signed the Montreal Protocol in September, 1987, it was widely praised for its reflection of unprecedented foresight in mandating preventive action on a global scale. Such praise may have been premature in light of more recent revelations that: (1) the rates of ozone depletion appear to be accelerating; and (2) the depletion seems to be spreading into the summer months over the north temperate zone of latitudes. Although there is still controversy over what the effects of such depletion ultimately will be, most nations of the world, including all of the advanced industrialized countries, agree that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) must be phased out of all production and use, and they are taking steps to do that before the turn of the century. Two distinctly different conclusions are thus possible regarding the outcome of the negotiations. As the first successfully negotiated multilateral agreement to address a global environmental problem, the Protocol is seen by many to be a triumph of environmental awareness and international cooperation. To other observers, however, the struggle for domestic commercial interests and national political debates that led to delays in action may already be causing serious and irreversible damage that could have been avoided. In short, the negotiation process worked, but it took to long for nations to agree that it was necessary and to begin the process.